Keep up with new strains, products, trends, and deals with Leafly’s curated cannabis newsletter.

Please enter a valid email address and try again.

By submitting this form, you will be subscribed to news and promotional emails from Leafly and you agree to Leafly’s Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You can unsubscribe from Leafly email messages anytime.

The National Cancer Institute is an organization mandated by U.S. law to educate Americans about cancer and the latest research efforts. According to its website, NCI is touted as “the U.S. government’s principal agency for cancer research.” And recently, it quietly admitted that cancer cells have been killed by cannabis in a lab setting.

“Cannabis has been shown to kill cancer cells in the laboratory (see Question 6).”

“Question 6” refers to whether any preclinical studies have been conducted using either cannabis or cannabinoids. The website references studies conducted on mice and rats that allude to cannabinoids inhibiting tumor growth by causing cells to die, blocking cell growth, and blocking the development of blood vessels tumors rely on for growth. It also linked to additional studies which are summarized below:

Cannabinoids can potentially reduce the risk of colon cancer due to its anti-inflammatory effects on the colon;

CBD, when used with chemotherapy, may help make chemotherapy more effective and increase cancer cell death without adversely impacting normal/healthy cells.

Furthermore, NCI acknowledged that cannabis can help with the following:

Stimulating appetite

Pain relief

Relieving nausea/vomiting

Treating anxiety

Improving sleep quality

Despite all of this promising research, NCI clarified that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has not approved cannabis for use in treating cancer, and only two cannabinoids (dronabinol and nabilone) are approved for treating nausea and vomiting as a result of chemotherapy treatment.

How can the U.S. government keep cannabis federally illegal, throw nonviolent drug offenders in jail, and instruct the DEA to raid cannabis businesses while at the same time acknowledging through its own cancer institute that cannabis may possess cancer-killing properties? We have a potentially powerful cancer-fighting agent at our fingertips — shouldn’t we allow for more cannabis research in an effort to save as many people from this devastating disease as possible?

By submitting this form, you will be subscribed to news and promotional emails from Leafly and you agree to Leafly's Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You can unsubscribe from Leafly email messages anytime.

Amanda L

And yet cannabis smokers still develop and die of cancer. It’s irresponsible for you to pretend the statement is some “admission,” like it’s been a hidden secret. it is not a cure for cancer nor has any study claimed as much.

The National Cancer Institute would seem to disagree with you! Do you perhaps have studies or some type of research that disproves these professionals?

The National Cancer Institute says and I quote “Cannabis has been shown to kill cancer cells in the laboratory”

Amanda, where do people like you come from? How can you be so brainwashed by government hypocrisy that you would criticize a treatment that has the possibility of giving millions of people hope for a brighter future?

I wish no hardship on anyone but must admit, I would be eager to see you or someone you love, diagnosed with cancer just to see how quickly you change your perception on the situation as I have.

Amanda L

It think your critical thinking skills have been affected. Many chemicals I’ll cancer cells…it doesn’t mean you want to ingest them. Just to stop you from looking more ignorant, here’s some reading for you to better understand the difference between the lab and real life. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2516340/

Juaneta Patton

There is no point in reading any of your ridiculous non-sense that may or may not be posted in that link. I skimmed it and it said Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah !!!

The fact that you would criticize ANYTHING that has the slightest chance of giving dying cancer patients hope, says all I need to know about your character.

The people that are consuming this are ALREADY dying of cancer, you think they give a rats ass that they may be increasing their risk for lung cancer?

Karma will catch up to you and I hope at this point Karma (cancer) eats you ALIVE, you un-carrying, arrogant waste of space.

Oh I see now whats going on after looking at your comment history. You are a Troll, that tries very hard obviously to act like you have some intelligence.

I pity you. What was it? Daddy hold you to much or not enough? Last picked at kick ball, late night sneaky uncle? Now your so angry that showing compassion for others actually brings you pain.

Amanda L

Lol. Rabid much? So you don’t want to read research that may challenge your view. Cool. I guess living in a curated reality is a thing these days. Your comments have no credibility.

Christian Kramme

You keep citing the same 1 article that tested 324 males in New Zealand that self declares there were baseline and confounding analysis missing that could misconstrue results. 324 people is an embarrassingly small sample size for you to be basing your argument on and validates your lacking of scientific credentials. If you’d like I can walk you through my database of the 73 publications on lung cancer and cannabis, 96% of which show decreased cancer rates among cannabis users, 3% of which show no correlation and 1% of which (aka your article and 1 other from 1992 show increased risk among a small sample size). Please be informed Amanda, don’t base “truth” on one abstract you read on buzzfeed.

Amanda L

Sure. Walk me through your “database”. That’s an embarrassing use of terms where you’re trying to make yourself sound like you’ve got a preponderance of evidence. It’s interesting you criticize the use of one study as just an example and not an exhaustive list of studies while offering not one single tasty tidbit out of your “database” of studies. By all means, walk me through your amazing piece of technology. Even the stats you throw up are completely and utterly meaningless in every way. 96% decrease…In what? And you get this 96% figure from your own personal meta study from your massive “database” of 73 studies none of which you provide any information at all? Fascinating. Here Christian, I’ll throw you a bone…enjoy:. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23846283

Christian Kramme

Woah there Amanda, no need to get so defensive. Your sarcasm does nothing but undercut the valid arguments you use, causing many to disregard your arguments based on your tone of voice alone, not your merit. Alright we’ll walk through them one at a time, you present to me how they are statistically false and we’ll go from there. I’ll pull examples from the 73 lung cancer studies as well as the 300+ general cancer investigations. In regards to your study, fascinating! I would think that someone “heavily” using cannabis in an unhealthy and unsustainable way would develop lung cancer. Similar to how someone who is an alcoholic will get liver failure while one drink a night increases heart health. The only people in that study with increased cancer risk smoked at rather absurd chronic levels. Most likely, they were also involved in other chronic health hazards that could also have added to their increased cancer rates. In regards to my studies, indeed I did get those statistics from just simple math I employed. Why are you attacking that math as silly or unjustified because I performed it? Seems like a baseless argument, as I am capable of basic arithmetic. I didn’t disregard your argument based on your ad hominem attacks, I criticized it based on your sample size and evidence alone. Try to be civilized Amanda, as your points are sound in many regards, but your narcisstic and pompous disposition make you rather difficult to listen to. But hey, I am not here to judge you on your voice, just your facts. Now to my database: it’s split up into in vitro cell culture analysis, in vivo animal models and statistical analysis of survey groups. I will link a publication from each of these three groups and you can read them, then discredit or agree with them. I agree with the findings of your paper, Amanda 1 Christian 0. Next up to bat, a longitudal statistical analysis of 84,170 men and bladder cancer rates: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/25623697/ as you can see we find a decrease in cancer rates among cannabis smokers (of all kinds). Although causation can’t be proven as is also the case with your lung cancer study unfortunately, id conclude this study shows cannabis use decreases bladder cancer activity, while your study shows chronic, unhealthy smoking causes lung cancer. Both sound arguments. Next, I am linking a publication that is a pre-clinical analysis of in vitro cell lines mixed with an animal model showcasing molecular action of THC in lung cancer cell lines. Of course, this does not prove cancer is cured, it just shows THC can be correlated to anti-cancer activity which helps validate the findings of the bladder cancer results and possibly explain a mode of action: http://www.nature.com/onc/journal/v27/n3/abs/1210641a.html. Now for my third and final link I will showcase a novel publication investigating in vivo inhibition of cancer proliferation in mouse models. As can be seen, activation of CB2 clearly results in tumor suppression in these pre-clinical animal studies. Once again, this does not show proof cannabis cures cancer, but does show a mode of action for anti-cancer activitity that I base my conclusions on. Sure animals don’t directly correlate to humans, but these types of tests are what the FDA and DEA use to schedule and regulate cannabis as harmful so I feel it’s appropriate to use them in this case as well as a predictive model: http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/61/15/5784.short. Now Amanda, this should serve as a nice platform to jumpstart our rigorous debate. There are zero clinic trials of cannabis as a treatment or directly Correlated cause of cancer, so please adhere to pre-clinical analysis as a basis for your arguments or as you did with the second study, larger statistical sample sizes on survey investigations. I implore you to refrain from attacking my grammar or word choice, as that is a petty and childish argument, please debate and criticize the studies I use or falsities I assert. Once we move through these three, I’ll link 6 more with some explanation, then 9, 12,15 so on until we reach all 324 of my cancer resources and the 73 that specifically deal with lung cancer. Looking forward to this Amanda, I’m excited to share my findings and research with someone new.

Wouter van den Heever

Has this gone any further? My son, 25, has been diagnosed, 15 Jan 2017, with Lymphatic Predominance Hodgkins, stage 3 possibly 4. He refuses chemo because of what he saw family had to endure, and eventually died anyway.

I’m researching alternative treatment and is currently giving him coconut oil infused with cannabis and some other treatments that seem good.

The Doctor that diagnosed him and the oncologists we saw on the matter are already phoning us at home to tell me I’m a bad parent and that my son is making a grave mistake to refuse the chemo. So I’m constantly reading all information I can get to prove/disprove the benefits of cannabis, trying to keep a balanced view.

I found this discussion very interesting and would have liked to see the end of it, if this was not. I’m still inclined to keep the alternative treatment going but have to admit i’m worried that we’re making a mistake. I’m also trying NOT to influence my son towards any specific treatment but as a parent it’s difficult to accept that what he chose to do/not do might cost him his life.

Thanks for letting me blow of some stress here. We know medical aids does not pay for alternative treatment, so a good friend of his started this crowdfunding. It is shocking to see how these alternative treatments are being downplayed by the medical professionals

I am so sorry to hear about the diagnosis of your son. It is always hard to face such a disease at such a young age, but alas is gives him the best chance to beat it. You and your son should immediately research Rick Simpson Oil. Your formulation of coconut oil is spot on but I’ll add a little to help:
Use Medium Chain Triglyceride oil (known as MCT Oil or fractionated coconut oil) instead of just regular coconut oil. It’s true you lose the natural benefits of the coconut oil, but you’ll increase the absorption and bioavailability of the cannabinoids you ingest two fold by using MCT. In addition, use lecithin as an emulsifier to help bind the cannabinoids and oil to make the most effective medicine. Again, you need to use Rick Simpson Oil or some form of it in order to begin treatment. He needs to begin 50-100mg a day of total cannabinoids (THC, cbd, cbg as well as their acidic counterparts) and make sure he’s getting the terpenes B Caro and limonene. Once he’s built a tolerance to the medication, he can use suppositories to administer 500mg-1000mg a day of cannabinoids to begin disease combat. I need to stress to you that if he has not already begun chemo, to wait and see if you can get the condition under control with RSO first, if you start to see success keep going and do not start chemo (it will reverse and destroy all progress). It will fry his immune system at this point. However, if you see no change after treatment or the stage progresses, he needs to go on chemo to get a hold of it. If he does, tell him to take cannabis pills and RSO to help eliminate side effects (pain, cramps, loss of immune system, appetite etc). He’s got a great chance, just don’t let him get down on himself or lose hope, patient outlook is key. Tell him he’s gotta eat healthy, work out, explore all types of homeopathic medicine, and if absolutely necessary (stage 4 with no response to cannabis treatment) go on chemo or radiation. You’re a great parent for not just throwing your kid into a white room to get blasted by radiation, don’t let anyone ever tell you otherwise. Research his cancer, research cannabinoids that have been known to interact with it (cbd, THCv, CBG) and take medicine that is as diverse and wholistic as possible. Keep fighting!

Steve Miller

Just saw the thread and thought I would throw in my 2 cents. I have a father who has been battling stage 4 lung cancer for 2 years (extremely aggressive). I think the most important thing to do is verify the success rate of any treatment they are recommending before you make decisions. There are MANY types of cancer, and MANY types of chemo drugs. There are also new targeting drugs in FDA fast track approval for many types of cancer. I would have his type sent to a lab to find the mutation and search for drugs in development which may be a great alternative to chemo. My dad just started chemo after 2 years, it probably saved his life. We have been doing a really good job of giving him good nutrition throughout this process, and boosting his immune system. The cancer has caused both pain, and inflammation in my dads case. This had caused him to become sleep deprived and lose weight from not wanting to eat. We have had really good success with him ingesting CBD oil for the inflammation (taking about 250 mg of CBD a day), and he is also taking Cannabis oil (about 90% THC) about 1000 mg per day. This has taken away his pain, inflammation (especially in the brain), he is eating again, sleeping 10-12 hours sound per night, and has stalled the cancer growth. I can’t say if it is killing the cancer, but it is doing an amazing job of managing his symptoms. There is no alternative from a pharmaceutical company to treat all of the symptoms, so just based on that, Cannabis truly is a miracle drug.

Amanda, Amanda. They’re mostly all right, and you’re wrong. Your New zealand study is much like the “studies” the tobacco industry used for years to claim tobacco was harmless. Given any argument, you can always find SOME study that clainms the opposite of what over 90% of all the studies claim. And they’re usually either flawed some way in design, or used a population so small that no meaningful generalized conclusions can be drawn. And your favorite study has both problems.

As for the petri dish vs real life, that IS a strawman. The petri dish is where most revolutionary medical discoveries began. Yes, all they show is a pssibility and further study is needed. But with cannabis, the Schedule I status itself is preventing those studies from happening, and THAT is the real point.

Amanda L

And just to be clear Christian, before you try asserting some sort of dominance based on wishful thinking credntials, I can assure you that is a pissing contest you’ll lose. Put your scientific bravado away. Don’t bother. I won’t be impressed. I’m not doing that here nor should you. Bring your evidence. Cite your sources. A personalized meta study from hand curated studies means nothing. I’ve provided two now. Don’t give me studies in a petri dish either. Many things kill a cancer cell. If that made for “safe” or “cure” we would be living in a different world. Wishful thinking and selectively parsing text from a website does not constitute facts. It’s irresponsible to make the assertions you’re making.

Credibility is in the eye (mind) of the reader. I don’t see much credibility in this entire thread, but I do see several people who want to be right wasting bandwidth arguing. Don’t you people have Twitter or Facebook?

Chris of the chin

There has never been a single documented case of death directly linked to cannabis consumption. The only risk factor that poses even the slightest risk is the method of consumption that involves tobacco wraps(blunts) or paper(joints), and the risk comes from the actual smoke. However, even at that fact. It would take an hilarious amount to overdose. For example, it would take about 40,000 times an average amount of Cannabis consumed compared to your body weight. Compare that with morphine which only takes 70 times the average amount. So it’s virtually safe when taken correctly and only has minor effects health wise if consumed radically. And I use radically in an ironic matter.

You get a way better outlook on life when you understand the science of the world you live in. I even chuckled after reading your comment, it’s funny how anyone will believe something that sounds logical to be true without learning the science behind it.
Ignorance is bliss, but knowledge is power.

Find me research after 2008 that doesn’t cite sources from the 90’s and then you might have a slight point. However, you failed to recognize that I never said that there was no risk in general but that the risk is presented by the method of “SMOKING” using tobacco based product and/or bleached papers, blunts or joints. Even the heaviest smokers have a significantly less chance of developing cancer than cigarette smokers. By the way, EVERYONE has a risk of developing some sort of cancer whether they smoke or not. However, you completely gloss over edibles and/or vaporization which completely eliminates the factor of damage from “SMOKE”. Again, the keyword here is smoke not Cannabis. Smoke increases the risk of cancer not Cannabis. I’m majoring in pharmacodynamics and have no biased opinion on the matter. I see things outside of human influence, you seem to have a political standpoint or moral belief that insights you to falsify with strawman-esque sources without adding the value in analyzation for the possibility of the latter.

Amanda L

Wow. And that jerking knee seems to be causing you all sorts of problems. Based on your ability to keep intrucing some rant related to absolutely nothing I have said or posted, it seems you may be doing a bit too much first hand research on yourself and the effects of drugs on an organism. Overdosing, carcinogens in smoke, adversion to metastudies etc…you are the person angrily introducing these topics as if any were mentioned by me. You should go back and read this conversation and explore the vitriol that seems to need an outlet in you. You introduce the strawman arguments and throw in some ad hominems too apparently. More manifestation of the vitriol coursing through you? Relax guy. If you put anymore qualifiers on your argument you’re going to start throwing out some weird anecdotal discussion about friends you know in college who were like…never sick-n-stuff because they only vaped or consumed fat soluble cannabinoids rectally. It’s cool. You’re majoring…you’re not a graduate research professional. You’re not even an entry level graduate research professional. You have no idea of my professional qualifications and so, I’d ask you to put your outraged ego feeling like your curated reality is being challenge. As a student, you should recognize the need for discourse and dialog and the exploration if ideas. by the way, want you said about cannabis overdose seems like a strange thing for an aspiring pharmacologist to say. Cannabis is a plant. Cannabinoids are the active substances found in cannabis plants that you’re probably referring to. Cannabinoids can be toxic and deadly. Don’t be silly. That’s more than proven. I think you’re conflating the argument that no one has overdosed while engaging in recreational use of cannabis and the misconception that cannabinoids are without dangers. I’m sure you’ll have some more qualifiers to throw in because you’re too busy overreacting to just say you overreacted fro the start. We can discuss pharmacology and pharmacodynamics if you’d like but it seems you may have a few years left on your degree. Good luck with your studies.

tmaca

And by the way, sometimes you just don’t know what you’re talking about. You seem to claim that the guy’s point about smoking vs ingestion is a strawnman. You really need to do some research. And I mean real research, using legitimate studies published in peer reviewed publications. And pay attention to the actual conclusions drawn by the researchers instead of extending them on your ownIf you do, you’ll discover that the method, smoking, has in fact been proven to release all sorts of nasties into the body that ingestion doesnt’t, whether the stuff being smoked is tobacco, marijuana, or even opium. Since you like to refer to articles, try one which clearly shows that the method of use (smokinbg) has a big effect on results. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2516340/

If you’re going to denigrate someone else, you really shoukld make sure you aren’t using non-factual argumrnts. There are a lot of holes that can be legitimately be knocked in a lot of the things said here by some cannabis proponents. But they also have some proven valid points, and basing your rebuttals on nonsense, as well as making them personally directed, rather than arguing and presenting valid facts, as well as making baseless claims like the reference to “overdose”, makes you look like a fool who seems to accept as reality whatever you see anywhere which was written by someone who is on your side of the argument.

Amanda L

Your reading comprehension is abysmal. His argument IS a strawman argument. I never said anything about overdoses. That isn’t the discussion. He’s argument is not relevant to my comments and prove absolutely nothing. That is the very definition of strawman. You are knee jerking yourself and are having an argument ALLLLLL on your own but hey, if you want to discuss that…I’m open to it too. In the study you post did you read the conclusion? “Long term cannabis use increases the risk of lung cancer in young adults.”. You probably didn’t. This was very much akin to my original assertion.
You’re welcome. Have a great day.

tmaca

First, there are zero documented cases, anywhere in the world, of death from cannabis overdose. Zero.

Second, your referenced study is utterly invalid, as far as claiming cannabis causes cancer is concerned. To begin with, the scientific community gives very little weight to any study which is based on any questionnaire. Even when it’s anonymous, it has been proven that respondents lie, fudge, or color their answers, and/or misinterpret questions.

But let us assume that every qperson perfectly understood the questionaire and answered everything absolutely accurately. Nobody would, even then, claim it proves that cannabis causes, or even increases the risk of, cancer. Why would they not? Because (ignoring the fact that the numbers studied were, by standard epidemiological study methodology, too small to support reaching such generalized conclusions) the study says absolutely nothing relative to cannabis itself. One of the most important factors in designing any scientific study is to eliminate, or otherwise account for, variables which coulds affect results but which have nothing to do with the item being studied. In this case, the only valid conclusion which would be acceptable in any peer reviewed publication would be that “among a certain number of cancer patients in New Zealand, a certain number admitted having smoked marijuana. The problem with claiming that it proves cannabis causes cancer (ignoring the too small population and its being based on self response) is failure to eliminate variables.. They looked at SMOKED cannabis. One variable is how it was smoked. it is known that there are carginogenic chemicals in cagarette paper, including rolling paper. The rolling paper could have caused cancer. Smoking any substances causes the inhalation of tars, and it is known that things in tobacco tars are carcinogenic. There are likely thngs like that is marijuana smoke tars. There are just too many other possible causes, besides the cannabis itself, that could have caused cancer.

Also, it was a “backwards” study. They started with people who had cancer and asked if they ever smoked marijuana. That’s sort of like starting with alcoholics and asking if they ever drank, say, milk, then saying that since 95% of them did, milk causes alcoholism.

If you really want to prove cannabis causes cancer, you have to start with cannabis users, then see how many develop cancer, while eliminating or compensating for variables, such as whether or not they also use tobacco (which the New Zealand study did control for), whether they smoked or ingested it, whether they were exposed to known carcinogens at work or home, etc..

Sorry, Amanda, before you start throwing studies around you need to get educated in how studies are designed and what conclusions can be validly drawn from diifferent studies.

Finally, Europe PubMed central is not a peer revuewed journal. It is some kind of archive of articles taken from various journalds. Are they sources all widely accepted peer reviewed publications? I don’t know, but I do know that a lot of things get published in Europe that American peer reviewed publications won’t accept. The article you’re using has just too many design deficiencues to allow for the broadness of the stated conclusion. While that article might have been approved in something like the New England Journal of Medicine or the Journal of the American Medical Association, I really doubt they’d have published it with that generalized conclusion. Which, by the way, as overgeneralized as it was, only applied to “young adults”, not everyone, as you seem to think it does.

Actually, there have been cases where marijuana use has caused death, just not directly. People stoned on marijuana have killed themselves and others in accidents, mostly automobile accidents. But, unlike the case with alcohol, there has not been a sungle death attributable to mere consumption of the drug itself. No deaths from cirrhosis of the liver, pancreatitis, or any other problem caused by the drug itself.

HappyTruth

People looking at their phone walk off cliffs. Is that all you got?

jsh1899

Learn your facts!

tmaca

Yup. And people who never smoked develop and die from lung cancer. So what? Means nothing, just like saying that cannabis smokers die of cancer means absolutely nothing.

And even those who call it a cure (something I seriously doubt) don’t claim it’s perfect or always works. Nor do many claim it’s a secret being kept hidden by the government. But it is a proven and effective drug forv treating cancer, and the government, whether intentionally or just due to its bureaucratic nature (I think it’s the latter) is making sure that no “known medical use” can be proven to their standards.

The facts are:
it has been scientifically proven that it eases many of the side effects of chemo and radiation therapy, in some cases making the difference between a patient continuing the therapy or discontinuing it. And yes, some do discontinue therapy. My mother died in 1987 after deciding to stop therapy, even thpough the doctors thought it would at least slow the cancer down, because she couldn’t tolerate the side effects. It has been proven that elements in cannabis are powerful antioxidants, and that they kill cancer cells without damaging healthy cells. There is also evidence proving that it MIGHT be curative in the case of some cancers.

IS it a cure? Nobody actually knows, although many believe it is. The reason nobody knows is that as long as it is a Schedule I drug it is incredibly hard to do any scientific studies, largely because of there being only one legal source of cannabis which meets the requiremebnts for an actual scientific study and the ludicrous level of bureaucratic nonsense required to get approval to use it, plus the onerous “security” requirements when you finally get it, if you ever do. Additionally, it’s incredibly hard to get any actually legit scientific study of marijuana funded.

So what is a Schedule I drug? It’s a drug which has a high potential for abuse and no known medical use. That means NO known medical use. Legally, even a single legit medical use removes it from Schedule I. And nearly the entire medical community knows and accepts that, at the very least, it is an effective palliative drug for those undergoing chemo or radiation therapies. So how can it still be on Schedule I? It’s a matter of definition. Any logical person would say that if nearly all of the medical community sees something as a useful and efffective treatment for anything, including treating side effects of other drugs, there is a known medical use. But the FDA gets to pick its own definitions. And their version of known medical use is not whether doctors actually use it or if they report that it actually works, but whether there are enough scientifically valid double blind studies proving that it has a medical use. And there aren’t. Why? Because, normally, when a preliminary study shows something useful, such as a certain substance killing off breast cancer cells without hurting healthy normal cells in the lab, more advanced studies are begun, determining whether or not thar substance can be used to create a safe and efffective medicine.to treat humans. But with marijuana, its status as a Schedule I drug has made it impossible, as a real world practical matter, to run the follow on studies. So keeping it on Schedule I prevents the development of evidence which the FDA would have to accept and have to drop it to Schedule II.

RiverMasterson

Hi
I am 49 and never used cannabis until 2 of my uncles and 1 aunt and finally my father succumbed to bowel cancer. It was not a nice experience to see my dad go from a strong man to a shadow of his former self in 6 months. When he was diagnosed he had to have chemo he had to have a drilled hole in his neck which they call a port . He had chemo every 2 weeks (this man was a strong , proud man who lived life with dignity and never complained or moaned ) when he had the chemo he was exhausted and violently sick .
The year was 2011 …….diagnosed April ……gone in September .
I had in 2012 I was diagnosed as a type 2 diabetic …..and had to take many pills each day to combat my blood suger levels .
In 2013 I had a colonoscopy which revealed 14 Polyps plus 3 that were beginning to become cancerous all removed .
I had to do something that is when I researched marijuana as a possible alternative .
I started to smoke a half a joint every night before bed , in 2015 I was no longer a diabetic and slept better . In 2016 I had another colonoscopy and was found to have only 2 polyps neither cancerous .
I am the living proof that it has worked for me ……..my skin is also much clearer and haven’t had even a sniffle of a cold or any other sickness since .
I am not endorsing or condemning Marajuna in any shape or form …..but I am Pill free for the first time in 15 years and feel good it worked for me and maybe some doubters should not be doubting until you have or someone you know has tried it for a period of time .
Thank you for taking the time to read this spread the word and lets all beat cancer

I agree, none of the so called,We are here to help you Companies care about anything but the BUCK! Your cure is their stock failures! Maybe Trump can drain their swamp!

mitchell moore

Will all of you please stop fighting. The name of the definitive study is antineoplastic activity of cannabinoids. You can find it in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute for the third quarter July -September 1975. The study was conducted by the Doctors Munson and Harris in the school of of pharmacology in the college of medicine at Virginia Commonwealth University. The study, interestingly enough, was funded by the Department of Health Education and Welfare. Officials of The Government of the United States have known since 1974 that delta 8 and delta 9 THC had anti cancerous properties. If you want to have a verbal fight about something, let’s fight about whether preventing the study of and access to the potential antidote for some forms of cancer from millions of Americans is treason.

James keeling

I agree . As a confused cancer patient, I would love to read about a cure. Tired of the Pharmaceutical lies and killing us for money sake. Payday someday !!!

Jenni Oium

What can we do for the MN & WI milk producers that just lost their market??? Hmmmm let me see…. maybe, just MAYBE it’d be ok to follow Colorado. Maybe there’s a living in producing hemp, grass, weed,canabis etc. call it what u want but it’s gonna be what it is. & it’s everywhere.

tim ashley

I’ve been cannabis user sence 1977..1979 I joined United States Marnie Corp stationed in camp lejune untill 1982.during the time of the contaminated water water that caused 1000s to develop later in life cancers, cancers of all kinds.Im still in contact with a few fellow Marines and not a single soul has or ever had cancer that smoked back in the day or still a cannabis user,you be the judge.could cannabis kept us from getting sickness?

David Manevich

I was in the corps at the same time and place. I started using cannabis a few years before i started high school. I joined the corp in 1980 till 84. I remember the bad water and i can now say i used cannabis all through my enlistment and im still using it at 56 and cancer free.
Nowadays i use it medically though instead of recreationally to treat nausea, sleep disorder, depression, and major chronic pain from a career in construction. Not to mention degenerative bone disease. Its very effective for pain relief, helps me sleep for around 6 hours straight through, and gets me up and moving around on those blah days that i have absolutely no motivation to even get out of bed.
Its way past time to reschedule and look towatds legalization not only for the patients but for our national deficit as well. ( tax dollars)
My father at 84 has developed prostate cancer and will only use natural cures i make him gummies from my own cannabis thanks to magic butter machine and he also is sleeping much better now, and since using my edibles his PSA went from 19 to 0.9 in a years time.
Thanks for reading i hope this helps someone else also.

i have recently finished chemo for breast cancer and have been told it can return elsewhere in my body..after reading all of your reviews i am determined to try it . can anyone tell me where i can buy 100% cbd oil so i can start living again..i have never smoked or used cannibis in my life.. so i do need some guidance .. iv already been scammed.. so iv been researching more this time.. also.. i dont want to make the oil myself..

Russ Dehart

Ivermectin a VERY cheap anti-paristic is an EXTREMELY powerful cancer cell killer at very low doses., the data is overwelming.. Its swept under the rug because it works and its CHEAP…… It WILL save your life… Your welcome.
Folks, In the USA CANCER IS A SCAM ! ITS ALL ABOUT THE $$$$$$$$…. And doctors dont know shit

Bryan Craig

In Quebec a woman was given a recipe by the Ojibwe tribe in Canada . She called it Essiac Tea and it cured cancer . She was called a charlatan by the Medical Association.https://youtu.be/jojYLUwSjhI

I was diagnosed with Metastatic Breast Cancer Sept 2015, I’m now 70 yrs old, a BC Canada resident where my excellent treatment is fully funded by our Universal Health System. I’m still low income as only get state pensions but would be homeless without those. I’ve been taking morphine since diagnosis mostly for the severe lumbar spine pain. I’m concerned by my increasingly dysfunctional memory and the possibility of overdose because of it. I’m researching CBD as an alternative to opiates. I’ve never been a marijuana consumer, would prefer just CBD but probably could tolerate some THC if taken at night. Anyone had experience using CBD for cancer pain relief? please provide links to related research you know of.
I intend getting BC to fund this medication under their Pharmacare program that pays for my medications. My GP will back me up on this as will my oncologist. I’ve media experience and make powerful argument, I intend also making health insurance companies fund this medication as a v desirable non-addictive alternative to opiates. Any suggestions, ideas are most welcome. The legalization of recreational pot in Canada, the opioid crisis and the effect of morphine on my memory make this a logical step.